Friday, February 18, 2011

Close Encounters of the Second Kind, physiological effects part five

Plugging along at these mysteries: cases #61-75, 1967 era. I'm going to try to be a little less "wordy" this time.Cases # 61-65: a strong one and two pretty good ones in this five. The strong case is the famous Stefan Michalak/Falcon Lake case, which baffled the Colorado Study. The two good ones are essentially unknown. Let's say a bit about them first. Fishing Creek Valley PA is an animal effects case studied by NICAP and the police. The animal-effect amounted to dogs going nuts but settling down immediately when the object vanished. What really intrigues me about the case is the emitted light from the "globe". That "ray" seemed to originate in the air separate from the object, and was not normally spreading light, nor even linear laser light. It rather, had a shape to it: beginning narrow, then arcing out "fatter" then back in, forming an ellipse in the air. Quite boggling.

Minatare NE is one small part of a wild series of events experienced by a farming family. I probably shouldn't rate it so high, but the descriptions of all that went on [different days] are extensive, intelligent, and well-told as to credence. Six witnesses filled out NICAP forms, but, perhaps due to location, NICAP did not follow up. Several good old "nocturnal meandering lights" are in there, plus one which could have been an astro-alignment display. A close encounter exists wherein family members appear to be "knocked out" except for the woman who is scared to death, and a long duration thing which might be a CE3 [with footprints] is another. The clear [?] CE2p is a passing light source followed by eye-irritation, numbness, skin-peeling, aches, fever. Again, without NICAP actually going out there, I am probably over-rating but the case just draws you in.

The Michalak case is complex and written up everywhere, so you should read it in detail elsewhere. Thumbnail: he as amateur prospector was stumbling about in the woods when he came across an obviously technological object, landed or nearly so, hatch open and voices inside. He thought it was US and approached. The surface was quite hot. The thing suddenly rotated and emitted a very hot gas which burnt a pattern through his clothing. He was affected with fainting and weakness and ultimately [the craft long gone] made it back home. Many radiation-effect-like sequelae occurred, including the famous burn pattern. His case was investigated by the RCMP as well as Colorado, and Canadian UFO investigators. Michalak ultimately had to go to MAYO Clinic for a long battery of tests. He finally recovered though the sequelae would occasionally return after dormant periods. Colorado sent Roy Craig up to investigate and, as usual with him, he looked for any excuse to trash the case. He ended up assuming that Michalak burned himself and made the rest up, partly in cahoots with Canadian local UFOlogists. None of that brilliant investigation has tracked accurately with what we actually know about the case, except for one thing: persons found loose metal at the site melted into fissures in exposed rocks. Michalak never claimed anything about this--others brought it up as possible proof of craft presence and radioactivity involvement. It seems likely that this was a later plant by a small-time UFOlogist trying to make something for himself out of it. A letter from a very good Canadian UFOlogist bearing on the case appears at the bottom of the post---put there just because I thought you'd like to see an original document.

Cases 66-70: Include a strong one and two goods. The "goods" are the Roswell 1968 case---sorry I blew the year to begin with so this is out of order---and the Texas Creek CO case. The Roswell case is a husband and wife incident with intelligent witnesses and a local NICAP member who knew them. It's a car stalker case with strange light [did not cast shadows and did not light up road]. Witnesses felt abnormally peaceful through the experience and wife's arthritis in neck seemed to have been cured.

The Texas Creek case is one of the great "misses" in UFO lore. The college student had his car quit on him alongside another two vehicles with the same problem. In the farm field was a huge "football" lighted at each end hovering. The witness [typical college student] got out and jumped the fence. He began to think he'd made a bad move when the giant slowly turned and pointed its nose at him. A beam shot out and paralyzed him and made him unconscious. But he did not fall, standing there with arms outstretched and a glow of light around him. This condition persisted until the object took off and reached the horizon. Only then did the glow click off and he fall to the ground. Where we missed out here is that the other cars' occupants although promising to write back to him, did not. He hadn't any of their names. He DID write to Colorado, but it was too late in their investigative period so they apparently blew it off. He and Coral Lorenzen and local APRO operatives tried hard to locate the other people, even posting ads in papers of likely locations. Nothing. In that it was very like the James Stokes situation. I rate this case higher than it may deserve because I have had the chance to listen to a rare audiotape of Coral actually interviewing him. Sounded pretty legit. But caveat emptor.

The strong case is Summerdale PA. It's strong because it has multiple witnesses [one of whom was a powerful young man, who did not like having to admit that he was paralyzed during the event]. These witnesses were interviewed by the local papers [the whole area was in a miniflap] and by the National Inquirer, and NICAP's local sub-committee was apparently aware of it, though I've found no NICAP case form yet. The main reason that I rate this case as a strong one is that the witnesses tell a coherent story and reported it immediately. The "personal context" therefore seems to be good, as well as the setting, in the midst of many central and western Pennsylvania incidents at the time. In fact they were so numerous at one point that profs from Penn State [maybe---near Harrisburg] formed a fieldwork group and drove wildly around trying to catch a UFO in the act---reporting their findings to the Colorado Project.

Last set: #71-75. Three "fives" here. One of these is Newfield/Ithaca again a case appearing in a UFO flap---it's astounding how much of this went on during the time of the Colorado Project itself. It was almost as if the UFOs were daring us, and we, instead, proved what an incompetent bunch of blind buffoons we are. Newfield was a young mom driving with her son in the car when a UFO took over the controls and drove the vehicle itself for a while. Her son was rendered "coma-like" during the event and remembered nothing. She got headaches and a variety of minor sequelae which went away fairly soon thereafter. A series of very good investigative interviews are featured in this case and it seems solid.

The Winnipeg case is "just above average" by itself, but is immeshed in a group of very odd UFO events involving Westdale & Charleswood Manitoba involving footprints in fields and RCMP investigations. The Winnipeg incident itself [involving an elaborate object which left a trace] was reported among other places in Bondarchuk's UFO Canada, which is a forgotten gem in UFO literature with much sensible facts and commentary. The CE2p elements are radiation-like: Headaches, dehydration, pain, copper taste in mouth, drop in white blood cell count. This case could well be a hidden"six".

The final case for tonight---darn it, I've done it again---too much babbling---is the Cussac France case investigated by one of UFOlogy's best, Dr. Claude Poher of the French national space agency. [and a founder of GEPAN]. He has stated this as being one of his favorite cases and totally puzzling. It "seems" to involve a large globe surrounded by "little black devils" which appear to have no regard for Newton's Law of Gravity. The globe sits there whistling and emitting [what else?] a sulphurous odor while the miniature demons work below or float above finally all in unison jumping up and entering the thing from the top. This performance had the local cows upset and the humans' eyes watering and irritated. Perhaps a disappointing CE2p effect, but when you're dealing with demons maybe that's all you want.

Anyway, I'm done---back is killing me. Hope some of this was interesting. Letter from Brian Cannon on the Michalak case is below. Till next week, peace.by the way, if the letter looks fishy to you at its bottom, that's because I clipped it there to fit the last sentence and Cannon's signature in from the second page---don't want to start an internet conspiracy that I'm holding out on you. ....but you never know....

11 comments:

The 'Trickster' element in some of these cases drives me batty. The nature of the Trickster makes it impossible to nail down some 'reality parameters.' Do you know of any objective way to capture, categorize, or somehow quantify this puzzling aspect? If there is no way to account for it, I feel we are dealing with something so 'slippery' it may defy our abilities to understand it.

I tend to view the pile of experiences which end up in UFOlogists' files in three categories: Extraterrestrial Technology as a primary working hypothesis, ET-with-deliberate-misdirection as a primary hypothesis, and non-UFO events which are imitative of UFO phenomena, probably deliberately so. To attempt to get some pattern-of-understanding out of the second and third piles is "fun" but ultimately [probably] a fool's errand. However there appear to be a large number of "well-behaved" category one cases in which at least SOME understanding of what this is remains hopeful.

Category one would involve "Keyhoe-ian" style cases [or USAF-style, if you wish]. They seem to demonstrate the physical reality and "this-worldliness" of the phenomenon, and constitute the basis for the ETH.

Category three cases involve "Vallee-an" style incidents [an example of which might be Rosa Dainelli in 1954 Italy] and constitute the basis for a parallel reality hypothesis with little hope of physical "proof" or "science".

Category two cases are the ET-like close encounters which seem to have a deliberate variation of external appearances so as to defeat obvious pattern finding as to "craft" or "beams", colors, other aspects.

What all three have in common is that they are the manifestations of intelligences who "ain't us". Since free-willing [non-deterministically-bound] intelligence is involved, of course we observers are vulnerable to pattern-destroying manipulations.

P.S. the category three is a legitimately separate category in my mind because of the nature of much of it as "outliers" to the core UFO case files. They indeed seem like the Trickster effect in operation. But at the same time, I don't believe that there is reason to ascribe the bulk UFO phenomenon to the Tricksters, as all our past experience with "them" indicates "spontaneous one-off" displays/manifestations, rather than decades-long "agendas" of any sort. Tricksters don't do long-term or coordinated activities. They are Hit-&-Run. I believe that both ET and whoever the Tricksters are have their paws in this, but are very different "critters" from different home towns. One might well ask if they are not looking at one another more than they are looking at us.

Your series of articles has been very interesting reading. Some of the cases have caused me to look for more information which, inevitably, led down other avenues. Of greater interest to me are your commentaries on the cases; some of your added comments have been more thought-provoking than the cases.

"I believe that both ET and whoever the Tricksters are have their paws in this, but are very different "critters" from different home towns. One might well ask if they are not looking at one another more than they are looking at us."

From a speculative viewpoint, I like this idea and will likely be chewing on it all day. Who or whatever is controlling the UFO enigma/experience/phenomena always manages to include a built-in flaw. It's as if the element of doubt is part of the fabric. At times I admire this feature and other times it's got me reaching for a stiff drink or fresh air.

In terms of the "psychological impact" on my own psyche: I have, fortunately not felt frustrated nor "stressed" about this in any way. I think that this is because the "ET" part of this has shown no evidence of doing any serious damage to our lives/cultural progress despite having 60+ years [at least] to do so. Therefore it/they are a fascinating but non-urgent mystery.

The "parallel reality" or "folkloric entity" part of this have several thousand years to have badly meddled with us and have not done so---in that case I suspect that "they" are under some limitations in their behavior. So they too become a fascinating but non-urgent mystery. This, thankfully, relieves me of anything except the need to accept living with incompletely answered questions---which when I contemplate that, is actually a pretty nice thing in most ways. I like having some paths to walk which lead to destinations not already completely known.

Michalak case seems very strong to me despite being single-witness. His sequelae were extensive, well-tested, and very strange. The RCMP were brought in early, and you do not mess with them lightly---such is a crime. Michalak has remained consistent with the details of his story and did not "profit" by it. There are all sorts of reasons to read his tale as smoothly harmonious with the truth. Plus, a superb later Canadian UFOlogist, Chris Rutkowski, revisited everything and found it credible.

Therefore I believe that the incident happened much as Michalak said it did. If so, it indicates some things of interest: a]. some UFOs are VERY technological in appearance and VERY physically present in our SpaceTime; b]. The technology can hide itself from visual detection if it wishes [this refers to the near-by watchtower observers not seeing it take-off and fly away]. This stealthiness may or may not have been only in a chosen direction; c]. the UFO agenda probably is not perfectly exercised by these guys, as even if this was one of their infamous localized displays, there was no reason to harm the witness. This seems like a blunder. If not, it seems like "they" weren't even aware of Michalak, another way of saying they're not perfect.

As to Cash/Landrum: I will say something controversial about that much later in this series.

Gosh, I have to say that reading your posts brings back the excitement and almost-delirium state of befuddlement I had in originally reading the details of many of these cases (again, unlike the stream of typical net postings of videos). And in a way they make less sense now than then. As another poster wrote I also very much appreciate your commentary--and post commentary-- and don't find them long-winded at all.

Robert: this is one of the only two ways to study and learn about UFOlogy. We have to go to the real original sources. That is where the facts are if any. The resources will tell us if we have something competently investigated in our hands [at least once we mount up a great pile of them---Hynek was correct--it's the cumulation of reports which makes the difference].

The "modern" quick-&-easy McDonald's-style internet posts and videos will never advance the field one nanometer---NO DISCIPLINED RESEARCH. I'm hoping to give everybody a little of the better days when a few UFOlogical giants walked the Earth. I can't really do that. It would be great to sit down regularly with all of you and sift through the files and the old journals and discover these realities together.

The second way of actually learning something solid is, of course, to go out into the field and interview witnesses oneself. If any of you do that, please let the rest of us know, and write it up in disciplined detail "the old-fashioned way".

"Therefore I believe that the incident happened much as Michalak said it did."

about the michalak case , there are only disembodied voices heard by the witness but no visible entity(s). the door of the craft was open when it landed, the witness peered inside briefly and decided not to go in. After that decision the door closed and the craft took off (burning / branding the witness at the same time). as for you assesment that sometimes UFO are very technological and sometimes more magonia like, i think its because they "tailor-made" their appearance in accordance to the witness.

"The parallel reality or folkloric entity part of this have several thousand years to have badly meddled with us "

Im comparing this to you other post regarding faeries. The same MO are very similar : Isolated Witness, Wilderness(forest/mountain area), some kind of invitation given, upon refusal the entity(s) leave.. the scenery can be changed to suit the witness (eg faeries inviting the witness to dine with them, Miner enticed by strange minerals and curiously enter a tubular fogbank in coppermine canada, etc)

"in that case I suspect that "they" are under some limitations in their behavior"

was it vallee or wentz that mentioned a faerie that said to a witness "we could destroy all humans if we wants" (boasting or not i dont know).. yet for all their powers they are still under God's limitation.

Since both highly advanced ETs AND paranormal power-wielding folkloric entities have plenty of "Abilities" to create about any situation that they'd wish, no theorist can state with absolute conviction that any one case can be determined to be one hypothesis rather than the other. It is merely my conviction intuitively that the WWII through 1952 UFO phenomenon exhibited itself as an airborne technology rather coherently, and thereby "fit" the ETH far better than the Olde Religion Little People {which hypothesis, in my opinion, takes a great deal of unlikely sounding hand-waving to make it a more acceptable match for the 1943-1952 UFO manifestation]. Once I see 1943-1952 coherently with the ETH, the slow evolution of the UFO phenomenon from there towards greater strangeness makes me feel the ETH more likely as the major hypothesis even there.